Oh sorry, didn't know that considering Pele, when they lost he wasn't playing, even if he was on the pitch.
Apart from the considerations raised in post #332, post #336 and post #368 there is another thing I did not mention. You conveniently compare Cristiano Ronaldo here with a player who was raised in a 'second tier' league. How about comparing with players who played all their life in a 'first tier' league? Best, Law, Suarez (the Spanish one), Keegan, Charlton, Rivera, Baggio, Beckenbauer, Rummenigge, Matthaüs, Müller. Cristiano Ronaldo has arguably surpassed a few of those, a case can be made for that - despite the severe bottlenecks in his career so far. But Ronaldo would've had five trophies under the old system while the most of those have only one. A very big difference. I agree with the reasoning of PDG1978 in post #334: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/messi-vs-football-records.1983902/page-14#post-27573673 http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/europa-poy.html#medals Or simply those rankings had been like sh*t
You might be right that Zico had a good shot. First a brief description of their year: Platini showed good form with the national team, Zico played only one game. Domestic form of Platini was good and he played many wonderful European games (as covered many times before) with the 1983 European Cup final as major exception & big bummer. This has been discussed in detail many times before - no need to do this again. How about Zico? His year is divided in two halfs. He made an immediate impact at Udinese in 1983, no doubt. We will see the effect of this later on. Had a few good Copa Libertadores games but his club was eliminated prematurely. How good was his first half in Brazil? Placar provides this overview: 1974: won award - 12 goals (in nationwide league, for sake of consistency) 1975: 1st centroavante - 10 goals 1976: not available - 14 goals 1977: 4th ponta de lanca - 10 goals 1978: did not play 1979: 5th ponta lanca - 5 goals 1980: 3rd ponta lanca - 21 goals 1981: not listed, lack of games - 3 goals 1982: won award - 21 goals 1983: shared 5th place ponta lanca - 17 goals https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/placar-rankings-brazilian-league.1979379/ El Grafico asked more than 100 journalists across the world and outcome was: 1. Platini 2. Falcao 3. Zico https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...est-player-ever.1784415/page-20#post-27300440 Guerin Sportivo held a poll among 65 journalists and outcome was: 1. Falcao 2. Zico 3. Platini http://archiviostorico.unita.it/cgi...&file=/archivio/uni_1984_01/19840103_0016.pdf World Soccer readers vote: 1. Zico 2. Platini 3. Falcao http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/wsoc83.html The South American player of the year award had neither of South American players listed. http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/sampoy83.html So you're right that Zico had a credible shot for a 'worldwide Ballon d'Or'. However, the problem remains that it were three different players (central midfielder, attacking midfielder, semi-forward). It depends on preferences and on tactics (of opponents) who excels. The previous discussion about Keegan reminded me of the sensational 5:1 win of Hamburg against Real Madrid (1980 EC semi-final). A 2:0 deficit was turned around. You'd expect that Keegan shined, but as the commentator mentioned, Madrid played like many Spanish teams strict man marking (although tuned down on the European stage, not as violent). Hence, it was the job of the forwards to drag markers out of place and create well-timed spaces for running players from the deep; the commentator also mentioned this. Keegan was at least until the third goal rarely visible but, with his great work-rate, he had still a valuable job in dragging & wearing/tiring down markers. So, the 'highlight' moments were limited thanks to the tactics of the opponent but had still a valuable contribution to the eventual result, and allowing others to take the limelight. Let alone when players were double or triple teamed by markers, a propensity that becomes enhanced if a star player plays with 'bad' team mates. Point is, also depends on setting and era which type of players excel with the ball - even more so in the past when countries had a vastly different playing style (more as nowadays). Anyway, hope that this post makes sense.
The onus is, in these discussions, on the people arguing against a steady state to attempt to prove that, or at least provide some reasonable conjecture. That surely is reasonable? If someone today suggests that it is hotter or colder than it was in the 1950s, the onus is on them to back it up. Not on the people who say, "well it seems just the same to me". It's like asking atheists to prove God doesn't exist, rather than on believers to prove He does. When we add to that the athletic progress made in the last 50 years, the increased focus on conditioning, on youth development, on training, on tactics, on scouting, on diet etc the prevailing assumption (whether correct or not) is surely that the game should be better today. Now having factored that in (and almost all parties accept that there has been some improvement in fitness, training etc) we note that a large volume of people on this board and beyond perceive the game to be technically weaker than it was X number of years ago. Despite that no evidence whatsoever has ever been provided by a single member of this board (beyond anecdotal) that there has been such a decline. Furthermore I offer anecdotal evidence, as someone who watches a large volume of games from 30 years ago and beyond, to note that in fact the technical abilities of today's players are actual superior to those of the past. That is all. Now lets supplant Cristiano Ronaldo back to the "golden age" of the game and judge him by the standards of that time. Let's compare him with the Ballon D'Or winners of that era. Looking at Cristiano’s last 7 seasons (inclusive of this) and comparing them with those of the early years. 1956: Won by Matthews more on recognition of his overall contribution than on the actual season. Based purely on the actual season Ronaldo would have probably been a worthy winner here if he had replicated any of his last 7 seasons, though Di Stefano would also have been more deserving than Matthews. 1957: Won by Di Stefano who scored 43 in 43 games, won the European Cup and La Liga. Ronaldo would have been a worthy winner with his 2008 season and last season. 1958: Won by Kopa. Given the focus on his World Cup performances, very difficult to compare with Ronaldo. Kopa won the European Cup and La Liga but Di Stefano remained the star. Potential win for Ronaldo depending on the voting conditions but unlikely. 1959: Won by Di Stefano who scored 34 goals in 43 games and won the European Cup. Ronaldo would have been a worthy winner in multiple seasons. 1960: Suarez won La Liga and the Fairs Cup. No performance in the Euros. Ronaldo would have been a worthy winner in a number of his best seasons. 1961: Won by Sivori having scored 25 goals in 27 games and won Serie A for Juventus. Ronaldo would have been a worthy winner in a number of his best seasons. 1962: Won by Masopust based solely on his World Cup displays. Depending on the voting criteria, Ronaldo might well have been a strong candidate based on any of his strongest seasons. 1963: Won by Yashin on an unclear basis. Largely based on his performance for the World XI against England in the centenary game. Ronaldo would have won in the majority of his seasons. 1964: Won by Denis Law based on his scoring 46 goals in 41 games in all competitions. Ronaldo would have won in the majority of his seasons. 1965: Eusebio won based on his scoring 48 goals in 36 games in all competitions. Ronaldo would have been a worthy winner in a number of his best seasons. So out of the first 10 years of the Ballon D’Or, Ronaldo would have been a strong candidate to have won a similar number of awards that he did in this era (in my opinion). Now in doing this there is a natural blurring because I’m trying to force a current situation (a Portuguese player spending 10 years at Manchester United and Real Madrid with the stability etc provided by the modern era) on to the past, but that is exactly the same case of trying to compare Ronaldo’s accomplishments with those who went before him.
How does the last paragraph overlap with the idea of a steady state? Secondly, ever ongoing evolution on the technological side can turn out to be very destructive as proven by the 20th century. The assumption of ever ongoing improvements, and hence improvements from an aesthetical point of view (or other - more important - point of views) is very problematic too. Third, whether change or constancy is the defining feature of life is a debate since the old Greeks. Heraclitus thought that everything is always changing; old people and leaders are replaced by new ones, old substances and compositions by new over time. So the burden of proof is on the ones who think that a 'steady state' is the overarching feature of a particular subject. And not the other way around, that one has to make a case for 'change'. What kind of 'change' it is, is another matter. I think many have added refinements to that idea. 'Technique' has many components, so it is possible that some things become better and other components worse. The separation between technique and physique is from modern insights very problematic, btw. So philosophy and everything changes. It remains subjective but many have here dropped some names of a particular year and asked the question: who can match the skill of those and how many countries can put a similar player on the table? As said, there is also the crucial difference between absolute improvements and relative improvements. Between improvements at the top level and below. Just as technique also here distinctions and refinements are possible. From a relative point of view I think many have provided more than just anecdotal evidence, albeit still fragmentary at most cases. In the other thread various posters have cited various things that show how associations of 'second tier nations' put less steady money and efforts in development of players thanks to the Bosman ruling (among other things). Also here some 'evidence' is mentioned like how defenses with Baresi and other rocks conceded multiple goals against nowadays unimaginable opponents. Still fragmentary but more than just subjective perception. Same with the 'chances created' in relation to the club team mates one plays with. Can think of some other things but bottom line is that refinements are feasible and needed. Maybe my mistake but how does this address my observation (and your observation as far as Messi is concerned) that there have been for a few years a #1 who stands out and a #2 who stands out above the rest - and how rare this is since the start of the TV era. ? I think you are stretching it in some cases, but I agree that some editions are up for debate (funnily, also around that time it was debated whether Yashin deserved it for only one game!). I will take 1957 as example (very brief) Di Stefano in 1957 played a very good semi-final tie. Only downside was that his team-mates kicked around like crazy but that this Madrid team has a nasty smell around them has never been denied by me. The final was a different thing but Fiorentina played bunker tactics. Very defensive, a pure meatwall. It was decided by a controversial penalty of Di Stefano (drawn by a team-mate), which broke the deadlock. Madrid controlled the game for the full 90 minutes. I don't think C. Ronaldo his 2008 SF and final performances can match these, or the importance for the team. Invisible in the semi-final and even missed a penalty. In the final he might have been better but despite more open tactics of Chelsea, he was still invisible and missed again from the spot on a crucial moment. In the league Di Stefano was vastly superior to his peers as well with his goals (in a season before Puskas arrived).
I'm going to take this in stages, because there is a vast amount to digest. In terms of "how does this reconcile" with a steady state, that is the default setting IMO, the starting point. Humans being born today are no more or less talented than those of 50 years ago. That is our "steady state" starting point. Now we can move on from that starting point to consider the multitude of changes which I have posited before in terms of development of the game (diet, fitness, tactics etc). I typically discount these in forming a direct judgement between two players because it is not an entirely fair comparison, rather like judging Newton v Hawking in a judgement of who is "cleverer". However, given the propensity of the nostalgics to romanticise players who faced a 2 man defence we are shooting ourselves in the foot. The "modernists" should simply accept these advances as evidence that the game is better and leave the nostaglics to make their own point. Now to the second point, we are not here looking at concept of "progress" in terms of some sort of theory of eugenics. We are looking at the very obvious principle that sporting accomplishments have improved over the last 50 years. I can't believe we're going back to such a basic level that this is even a matter of question. Thirdly, while I'd love to get into a further debate over the subtleties of classical philosophy, the "steady state" is an obvious starting point. It frames the whole discussion. If nothing is a "given" then we should really start by determining what the impact of the reduction in the ozone layer, the sun's gravitational pull and the density of air in order to really capture the full essence of these players.
I understand. But also the human race, and forgive me this generalizing statements, can change. We know that people are nowadays vulnerable for diseases, viruses, bacteria (whatever) for which they were 'immune' (I put it between signs because it is not such a black/white thing) 40 years ago. You hear similar things about the kids of today, esp. in the west. Regardless of whether it is true, you often hear that the physical and coordinational basis of children (in general - this is the problem) has declined, and this starts already very young, at the age of 2 and before even - before they can talk. It starts in the belly of the mother, I read in a book by a professor. Hence, to relate to the technique thing, some things can 'improve', others 'deteriorate' (depends on the standards one has). The idea that the average/median human of 100 years ago is the same of today when he comes to earth, before 'environment' kicks in, is also not set in stone. And the difference with human relatives of 100 million years ago is very obvious ofc (for sake of completeness). [I put this in bold: it does not mean that I'm a believer in genetic degeneration!]
Simply put, no. Some people have “observed” a phenomenon (whether the phenomenon of a technical decline was there or not, they think they observed it) and have then tried to provide supposition as to what events have taken place which might have led to that. That’s not evidence. It’s supposition. This “evidence” (the supposed decline of some smaller nations for instance) is again not based on anything. Even if we were for a second to suppose that the whole of Eastern Europe is no longer producing quality players because of the Bosman ruling, Brazil’s population has increased by 150m since 1950 furnishing the world’s biggest producer with far more players to choose from. Clubs are coordinating their youth set ups in a far better way while we are now introducing players from Africa, Asia etc to increase the quality of the game. All the mindless discussion saying (for instance) “Bulgaria were good in 1994 and aren’t now” fails to take into account the natural ebb and flow which takes place within a game as global as football. In terms of how did “Baresi and Co” concede goals, this is obviously anecdotal. Real Madrid conceded three goals to Galatasaray last night, Barcelona have conceded numerous soft goals. These things happen regardless of the era.
It addresses it because the seasons that Ronaldo has had in the last 7 years would have won the Ballon D'Or on numerous occasions. Start Ronaldo's 2007 off in 1960 (so 2007=1960, 2008=1961 etc) and he probably wins 4 Ballon D'Ors in that era. Note, I'm not saying that he was a better player than those of that era but at a club level a histoptorical dynamic was in place which allowed him to do it. This is an era in which achievements in the Champions League and domestic league have a vast bearing on perceptions of who is the best player. National tournaments are no longer viewed (for most people) as being the bar to judge players by. In respect of 1957 (for instance), to me it seems inappropriate to only consider the semi-finals and final (which Ronaldo actually played well but not amazingly in, as well as scoring United's only goal) of one competition. Ronaldo topped scored in the competition but was at his very best in the league. I'm not saying that Ronaldo should definitely have won, but his 2008 matches up to the best season of Di Stefano's career. Given the regard in which Di Stefano is (quite rightly held) that is an unbelievable accomplishment.
Even in Messi's case it has more to do with the expansion of the voting "population" rather than any conclusion as to the strength of this era: the key seems to revolve more around who is seen as the best player in the world and less on the actual achievements in the season, something which was less apparent in the past IMO. (also perhaps this modern-day obsession with goals) Personally I feel like this: Ronaldo deservedly #2 in 2007 (could even make a case for #1) and #1 in 2008, Messi deservedly #1 in 2009 & 2011, arguable for 2010 and undeserved for 2012. Even for 2009, Xavi would have been a deserved winner and at the very least runner-up (don't get why Ronaldo is 2nd here); for 2010 there are quite a lot of candidates (Messi, Sneijder, Forlán would have all been deserved winners for me; and Milito had he been involved in the WC); 2011 is clear cut (again don't know why Ronaldo is 2nd here; Falcao and Ibrahimovic were better for me) and 2012 would have been deserved for Ronaldo, Iniesta or Pirlo, I think. Maybe you won't agree with me, but I'm sure you'll agree that most of the players I referenced had great to outstanding seasons in these years.
I understand the point that many kids these days prefer to play video games instead of ball, but on the other hand you can make a great living even if you are just an 'average' 1st league player nowadays. More motivation for someone who has the chance?
All playing in Europe and most being offensive players. You talked about the modern-day obsession of goals yet you're pretty much catering to this obsession and centralizing the idea around an European market only. In today's era, Zidane would never be best player of the world. Neither would Mathaus, Beckenbauer, Maldini, Rikjaard etc.. then again even back then if you weren't scoring people didn't pay that much attention to you.
[In a pre-ENC era Matthews also garnered much of his EPotY votes on the back of some stunning performances for England IMO. The match that's considered to have "sealed the deal" for Matthews picking up the Ballon d'Or was the part he played in demolishing the Brazilian rearguard and running Nilton Santos (who was considered one of the top three left-backs in the world at the time) 'round in circles in the two nations' not-so-friendly game at Wembley in May of '56. BTW comme, I'm not saying that you're mistaken: I'm simply adding my perspective as a follower of the game that lived through that era...]
Thanks Roy. Yes I had heard about that game and appreciate that international friendlies were held in a different regard at the time. However, viewed through the modern concept or modern criteria I think Di Stefano looks a more natural candidate to win in 1956.
It seems that Michael Cox of Zonal Marking has been reading this thread. Here, two pieces on Messi's dominance. It's indeed pretty staggering when laid out this way, though I do wish we had some input from the posters who most appreciate players of previous eras (would love Gregoriak's opinion on this thread, for instance). http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/tacticsandanalysis/id/1165?cc=5901 http://blogs.thescore.com/counterat...el-messi-is-three-world-class-players-in-one/
Who said that? Fact said you're very wrong! Xavi , Iniesta are not that good (no way better than Zidane's scoring) and they were also featured in TOP3,5 best players for last 5years! - Besides GOALS, Zidane was much more inteligent and had more variety in passing than them! Just last 2 WC, 2006, Zidane did show how a great playmaker should play before he retired 6.7 years ago ... Unless you say today's ERA just started YESTERDAY? - Mathaus did very well in WC90 , that both Xavi, Iniesta could not do same in WC10 or Euro12 - Rijkaard could command the team at least the same way like Xavi plus a great defensive talent much more than both Xavi Iniesta - Beckenbauer and Maldini could teach all the likes Hummels, Ramos, Pepe, Kompany how to defense and deal 1 vs 1 ... This era, Messi and CR7 STATS - enjoying their best teams in a given up liga had made a SO FAULTY perception in disguise! THIS IS A WEAK ERA (thanks to Messi, CR7, Ibra Falcao Neymar ... to have saved it )
Please James, learn to read in English. It's a prerequisite of being able to effectively participate in this forum.